Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Entertainment Games

Greenpeace Complains Game Consoles Aren't Green Enough 450

Posted by timothy
from the shocked-simply-shocked dept.
jasoncart writes "None of the major games consoles are 'green enough', says environmental group Greenpeace in a report released today. Zeina Al-Hajj, Greenpeace's International Toxic Campaign co-ordinator, said: "We were shocked with Nintendo; it was our biggest surprise." The company is described by the group as the least 'green' tech firm."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Complains Game Consoles Aren't Green Enough

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:46AM (#23475510) Homepage Journal
    every 1-2 years they put out a console that explodes from some of its parts from some brands. they need to make consoles explosion free before making them green.
  • Who Cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:48AM (#23475546) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, who cares what these people think about gaming consoles. What's next? Reporting on what Hamas or Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization thinks about the XBox 360?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fredrated (639554)
      Who cares? How about people that would like a sustainable, livable environment?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Digital Vomit (891734)
        So you think we should listen to eco-terrorists?
      • How about people that would like a sustainable, livable environment?
        Then put down your Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon game and play Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon in real life: join the plain people [wikipedia.org] ;-)
      • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nicolay77 (258497) <(nicolay.g) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:24AM (#23476172) Homepage
        Only if Greenpeace would speak with truth.

        After the Apple issue, I will no longer listen to these zealots on anything regarding electronic technology.

        Once a liar, always a liar.
    • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garett_spencley (193892) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:57AM (#23475726) Journal
      I agree.

      Greenpeace has every right to whine and bitch and express themselves. But slashdot is giving them a voice every time they chose to whine and bitch about a technology company and that's annoying.

      Free speech is glorious but it doesn't give the individuals the right to be heard.

      But then, it gets us whining and bitching which fuels the community so there's what slashdot gets out of it in a nutshell. I suppose it's a case of don't feed the trolls. It would be a nice fairy tale if, the next time the editors post a story about greenpeace, NOT A SINGLE PERSON COMMENTS.

      Alas, I'm dreaming.
    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <`moc.liamg' `ta' `yppupcinataS'> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:59AM (#23475766) Journal
      Greenpeace != Terrorist organization

      Still, asking those bastards their opinion about any electronics is pointless. They won't be happy until it runs on fairy dust (harvested from free-range fairies, of course).

      Greenpeace is a great example of one of the environmental organizations that give environmentalism its freaky leftist reputation. The environment is not a left or right issue; we all live here, we all should care.

      But having an organization who honestly believes we should abandon most aspects of our current technological society in order to be more in tune with the planet polarizes the issue, and drives more moderate people away.

      This is a great example, along with all the rest of their consumer electronics whinging lately. That stuff is minor league in terms of global pollution problems, but they know that they have a better chance of getting the boomers to protest apple or microsoft than they do of persuading them to give up their hummers.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        harvested from free-range fairies, of course
        No, no. That's not enough.

        Try: Harvested from Free-range Fairies, purchased at Fair Trade prices (fairy farmers have to eat, too!), packed in an unbleached cardboard box made from 100% recycled material (at least 90% post-consumer), and shipped via row-boat and bicycle, each driven by unionized Fair Wage workers from the Third World. Oh, and could I have fries with that?

      • by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:34AM (#23476358) Journal
        That stuff is minor league in terms of global pollution problems

        Indeed. The efects of just transporting games and game consoles dwarfs any negative environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal. Greenpeace should think about how much more it would harm the environment if you had to drive to an arcade to play electronic games like you did in the 1970s.

        Speaking of the seventies, in the 1870s someone actually predicted the huge environmental problems that would be posed by the futuristic society of the 1970s - the continent, he predicted, would be hip deep in horse shit.

        Technology solves far more problems, environmental and otherwise, than it causes.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kohath (38547)

        Greenpeace != Terrorist organization
        That's what Hamas-backers say about Hamas.

        Greenpeace is certainly involved in piracy [guardian.co.uk] (the nautical kind) against Japanese whaling ships. If that's not terrorism, then there's a pretty thin line.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nomadic (141991)
          Greenpeace is certainly involved in piracy [guardian.co.uk] (the nautical kind) against Japanese whaling ships. If that's not terrorism, then there's a pretty thin line.

          Getting in between whalers and whales is neither "piracy" nor anything even remotely close to terrorism.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by yali (209015)

          Greenpeace is certainly involved in piracy

          Entirely consistent with their environmentalist goals. That's part of their strategy to stop global warming [venganza.org].

      • Except Greenpeace uses tactics to terrorize any organization that doesn't give them what they want. Also they put people lives in danger at sea for their cause.

        Since they aren't a representative of a government, they are terrorists.

        I will never give up hummers!...oh wait, did you mean the vehicle?

  • Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rurik (113882) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:50AM (#23475590)
    More useless propaganda, and the idiots that fall for it.

    For the last two years, Nintendo has been rated the worst. But, not because that is the truth. They are rated that way because they refuse to disclose their environmental methods. And, by disclose, I mean that Nintendo didn't have that information readily available on their website.

    See this follow-up report [arstechnica.com] from Ars Technica.

    In other words: nothing to see here; move along.
    • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tsoat (1221796) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:56AM (#23475716)
      'Greenpeace reserves the right to arbitrarily change a company's score if they decide the company did something disagreeable' I tkae this as popularity points so to speak, the companies have to "suck up" to them if they don't want to "lose" points. I find this whole thing utterly ridiculous. Im surprised JT hasn't reared his ugly head.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lumpy (12016)
      Exactly, anyone taking the word of greenpeace about anything is a little wacky. Even the FOUNDER of greenpeace left because the foundation got hijacked by a bunch of nutjobs.

      Call me when a Credible organization has such a report.
    • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by samkass (174571) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:05AM (#23475866) Homepage Journal
      This is the same thing that Greenpeace tried to do to Apple. Despite having one of the best records in the industry, Greenpeace rated them "worst" because they didn't publish enough details or promise to do things in the future. Other companies which were in much worse shape but promised things in the future got better ratings. In other words, Greenpeace appears to value words over actions.

      The Wii uses a small fraction of the electricity of the other two consoles. If all Wii sales had been PS3 or XBox360 sales, the environment would be a lot worse off.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rogerborg (306625)
        That's jive! Look, in this new "research", Greenpeace have produced actual photographs of professional scienticians doing complicated scientician stuff. You're not going to tell me that someone wearing white cotton gloves doesn't know what they're talking about, surely?
    • Re:Sigh.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:06AM (#23475896) Journal

      More useless propaganda, and the idiots that fall for it.
      Nice troll-ish leadin, I'll bite.

      Propaganda is not useless, and this particular propaganda is definitely not useless. Environmental concerns are very real, and bringing attention to them serves a useful purpose. By making consumers aware of environmental concerns with products, consumers may factor them into their purchase decisions. Without information about environmental practices, there is no way for purchasers to compare products along those lines.

      So I ask you, why is it useless for purchasers to have more information when purchasing a product?

      Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental. But Greenpeace uses publicity campaigns in order to affect the decisions made by consumers... and there is nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, it is a useful counter to the corporate propaganda (advertising/marketing) that runs practically unchecked.

      All that said, one would be wise to take any information from an interested party with a grain of salt. Whether it's Greenpeace, industry organizations, or the producing company itself, critical analysis always helps... but dismissing information out-of-hand is probably the most useless act to take with regards to market choices.
      • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Otter (3800) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:35AM (#23476370) Journal
        Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental.

        If I'm understanding correctly, you're berating him and accusing him of trolling because repeated, willful dishonesty isn't "useless" as it gets media attention for Greenpeace?

    • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:16AM (#23476034)
      Doesn't anyone even pay attention to Greenpeace's bitching anymore? I mean, if you've got someone who tells you every day that the sky is falling, no matter what you do, how long before you just tune them out?
    • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gad_zuki! (70830) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:30AM (#23476286)
      The wii uses 11 watts of power at standby by default because of the WiiConnect24 feature. Nintendo designed it so it it checks in with wifi while 'off' for updates and other tasks. This right here is a good example of bad engineering. Instead of turning this on selectively (or turned on by games that might need it), its on by default and it just eats up power. Its like leaving a new CFL bulb on 24/7. That might not seem like a lot but multiply that by the units sold and you're seeing one of the worst standby machines on the market.
      • Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sentry21 (8183) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @12:29PM (#23477436) Journal
        Except that the XBox 360 and PS3 can often use even more than the Wii. If you turn off the Wii's 'connect24' option, it's measured at 1.3 watts, as seen in this article [hardcoreware.net].

        With the PS3, if you leave it on 'remote play' standby, it uses 24 watts. This guy [aeropause.com] did some interesting measurements. Among the more interesting ones:

        Satellite TV receiver (non DVR), standby or off: 15 watts.
        ReplayTV DVR: 30 watts standby, 34 watts active.
        Christmas tree, sparsely lit: 61 watts.
        HP Compaq 2510p work laptop, idle: 67 watts.

        So if you're really concerned about how much power your Wii uses in standby, make sure you're unplugging your receivers, DVRs, christmas trees, and computers when not using them as well.

        But that's standby? What about when they're on and running? The first article mentioned shows some interesting figures - namely that the 360 averages 185 watts, the PS3 averages 193 watts, their test PC averaged 198 watts, and the Wii averaged... 17 watts?

        So the Wii uses 1.3 watts idle, 9-11 watts on Connect24-idle, and 17 watts while active.

        The PS3 uses as low as 1.9 watts idle, 24 watts in 'remote start' standby, and up to 193 watts while playing a game.

        Sorry Greenpeace - which system is greener?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by neumayr (819083)
      Well, it does make sense to have companies publish this information, as it would enable consumers to make it a factor when deciding to purchase something, making it possible for them to vote with their wallet on environmental issues.

      Not disclosing that information makes you wonder - why wouldn't they publish something that could make their products more appealing to a certain crowd? The most obvious answer would be that that information would make their product less appealing.

      Nintendo probably have all
  • by hengdi (1202709) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:51AM (#23475620)
    According to this http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/wii-the-greenes.html/ [wired.com], the Wii uses 17 watts of energy, compared to the PS3's 171 watts and the 360 Elite's 194 watts.

    Doesn't this make th Wii the greenest? OK, so it may not be the easiest to recycle, but it's an order of magnitude better on power consumption!
    • WiiConnect24 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:12AM (#23475980) Homepage Journal

      According to this http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/wii-the-greenes.html/ [wired.com] [wired.com], the Wii uses 17 watts of energy, compared to the PS3's 171 watts and the 360 Elite's 194 watts.
      I seem to remember reading that the Wii uses more energy than the PS3 and Xbox 360 when on standby. But that's because it goes down to WiiConnect24 mode, where the "Starlet" coprocessor on the video chip (an ARM9 core like the Nintendo DS's CPU) remains on and manages occasional Wi-Fi communication.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sentry21 (8183)
        You can disable Connect24 if you like, which will drop you down to about 1.3 watts from the 9 to 11 watts typical.
    • by Dzimas (547818) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:13AM (#23475998)

      *Doesn't this make the Wii the greenest? OK, so it may not be the easiest to recycle, but it's an order of magnitude better on power consumption!*

      Not only that, but from a physical perspective the Wii is far smaller than the PS3 or 360 and has a lower component count. It follows logically that it requires far less toxic soup to manufacture and the process consumes less energy. I suspect that a much larger percentage of Wiis are being used with old standard definition TVs, too (since the Wii tops out at 480p). Those older CRTs draw more power, although one doesn't have to factor in the environmental cost of manufacturing a new flat panel. And, honestly, recycling is a moot point in most of North America - we have a very immature electronics recycling industry.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:18AM (#23476080)
      Yeah, but the Wii is built using baby seal skin.
  • http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up [greenpeace.org]

    Nintendo mainly scores bad because of their use of PVC and BFR if I read the rapport right, and the lack of a disposal policy.
  • It's very green.... oh I see.
  • by NeoOokami (528323) <neowolf@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:52AM (#23475636) Homepage
    http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment [nintendo.com] Assuming you ignore that. This is a repeat of old news anyways. Their criticisms of Nintendo basically boil down to them not having an answer to everything on their checklist exactly how they like it. Greenpeace means well but they tend to demonstrate a horrifying lack of thought or genuine consideration of anything other than their own agenda.
    • by maxume (22995) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:03AM (#23475842)
      Using whatever methods you feel like in following your own agenda is not the same thing as meaning well.
    • by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:17AM (#23476058) Journal
      I think you give them FAR too much credit with that statement! IMHO, they DON'T "mean well" by any stretch of the imagination! They're on a rampage with a skewed agenda - and it's important for people to see them for what they are, a group of radical environmental extremists.

      If you REALLY want to encourage positive changes in our "environmental footprint" - you need to do it with education and promoting scientific advances. Research in creating lower power-consumption devices, improved battery technology, an HONEST and REASONABLE approach to the subject of "recycling" ... these are all good moves. Harassing businesses and publishing negative reports about their products just makes you lose your credibility.
  • by gnick (1211984) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:52AM (#23475640) Homepage
    Game consoles are in the news? Nintendo just released a new $80 piece of hardware for the Wii that's making headlines? Game consoles aren't green enough!
    Hybrids are in the news? Not green enough - Their batteries kill the planet!
    The Westminster dog show is on? Dogs aren't green enough! Their pee kills grass!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      The problem is that the hippies keep changing their story. I feel like I'm in an Orwell novel where the enemies and allies keep changing. One day Al Gore is touting ethanol as the solution to all our gas problems, then when it's pointed out that this has led to a global food crisis already, suddenly he's all about wind. Global cooling, the disappearing ozone layer, global warming...what will it be tomorrow, guys?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sentry21 (8183)
        Let me see... tomorrow is going to be the food crisis again, then Darfur on Thursday... Friday through the weekend is the crisis in China with the earthquake, and then on Monday we're going to go bowling, and I need to do some laundry.

        Of course it's complicated - that's why we need to fund Greenpeace to keep track of it all for us, so that they can tell us what to be afraid of and what company we should boycott pointlessly this week.
  • by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot@@@exit0...us> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:52AM (#23475644) Homepage
    Probably none. You don't get and use a gaming console while "Thinking Green". You get it with the intent to have fun, depending on your definition of fun, and to escape the day-to-day. You think about the GPU response and what games are available.

    While you may think about saving the planet, you won't be thinking about the one Greenpeace wants you to think about saving.

  • by Rycross (836649) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:53AM (#23475658)
    I can't follow the link at the moment, but is this the same logic as last time? You know, where they say that, because Nintendo doesn't disclose enough information, they'll rank Nintendo as low as possible (and, hey, the press that they get because of the Wii's popularity is nice too). Will they ignore the fact that the Wii uses a fraction of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's power? Basically, are they whoring for more press like the last time they published this study?

    Lately, Greenpeace doesn't have a lot of legitimacy with me. And of course, saying that, I'll probably have a couple of people screaming about how I don't care about the environment. Seems theres always at least one guy who think that Greenpeace represents the entire environmental movement.
  • by neochubbz (937091) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:54AM (#23475676) Homepage
    http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp [nintendo.com]

    What does Nintendo do to help protect the environment?

    Nintendo is very concerned with doing our part to help preserve the environment. We're always researching new products and procedures to make our products and operations as environmental-friendly as possible.

    Some things Nintendo is already doing:

    • In Nintendo of America offices:

    • We recycle the paper we use company-wide.
    • We limit our use of colored paper, since it's not easily recycled.
    • We purchase recycled paper towels, report covers, message pads, and writing pads.
    • We currently recycle more than 70% of the waste that is generated at our headquarters.
    • We actively promote the recycling of aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and glass in our corporate cafeterias.
    • We re-use or recycle over 99% of any returned product that we receive from retailers and customers
    • In our products:

    • We use at least 80% recycled paper in all of our shipping packaging.
    • We don't use Styrofoam in any of our packaging.
    • Many of our instruction manuals are printed on recycled paper.
    • Our clamshell packaging is recyclable and most recycling centers accept it.
    • As is stated in the manuals of the Wii console and DS Lite, neither product contains latex, lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB), or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). Additionally, we have been phasing out the use of PVC in our packaging, using a safer, recyclable plastic instead.
    • We take great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials. All Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards. In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers to certify that any parts they deliver do not include hazardous chemical substances, and ensure that Nintendo fully controls its products internally.
  • by Inda (580031)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7407934.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    Longer, faster, no adverts, etc, etc

  • by MaizeMan (1076255) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:58AM (#23475740) Homepage
    Face it, this is just like green peace singling out Apple as the computer company they were going to harass about manufacturing methods. They pick the brand best known to their political base and go after it for practices shared by the whole industry because they get a lot more press coverage attacking a "hip" company like Nintendo or Apple, than a boring one like HP or Microsoft.
  • by hyperz69 (1226464) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:59AM (#23475762)
    I would hate having to go around telling people I have a green Wii. Might get some funny looks.
  • Look, I'm an old, angry, Republican, and not one of these tree hugging types, but I think Greenpeace has a really good point.

    I mean, check this out. When I was a kid, TV's were put into wooden cabinets. Steel was used for a lot of structural things. Plastic was considered cheap and the knock on Japan was that it was all "cheap plastic stuff".

    Well, fast forward almost 40 years later and what do we find. Plastic stuff is really not all that recyclable, it comes from petroleum, so, when it really boils down to it, plastic actually really does suck as much as the old timers said that it did.

    Why can't they make a video game enclosure or a computer enclosure out of some kind of wood? Or, make controllers out of some kind of steel? Wood is at least renewable and steel is the most recycled thing there is. It just seems to be madness to be making more plastic junk out there when we already have mountains of this stuff.

    • by oahazmatt (868057) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:12AM (#23475972) Journal

      Or, make controllers out of some kind of steel?
      If the very first Xbox controller was made out of steel it would be like holding a small Buick in your lap.
  • Yes, and? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Auckerman (223266) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:02AM (#23475824)
    What do they expect? Industrialized societies destroy their surroundings. From shipping products, to driving to the store to buy it, all the way to the manufacturing process. The best you can honestly hope for these days is that the product doesn't poison your kids and even that isn't a guarantee. To call out "consoles" over, say computers in general, is merely an attempt to ride the media buzz surrounding a market that isn't being hampered in the United States during it's recession.

    To be honest, I could never take these guys seriously anyways. They aren't interested to solutions or working within the economic reality of the planet, they seem to want to end the industrial revolution and have everyone go back to farming. Nuclear power, nope. Working with companies to make an imperfect process better, while letting it remain imperfect, nope can't do that rather continue to yell at them from over here rather than work with them. It's all or none.

    Nature conservancy is an example of a environmental group actually making a real difference. Green peace is a bunch of self important attention whores.
  • How much fuel ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:19AM (#23476106)

    ...does the Rainbow Warrior burn?

    Next time Greenpeace goes chasing whalers, grab an oar.

  • by moosesocks (264553) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:24AM (#23476176) Homepage
    Learn how to choose your battles.

    To me, Greenpeace is almost completely irrelevant as an organization, and have lost pretty much all of their credibility. They oppose everything, and offer very few practical solutions to the world's ills, whilst continuing to decry virtually anything fashionable or popular.

    As a result of their anti-nuclear tactics, construction of new nuclear plants stopped, and a great many coal plants were constructed instead, which had a far more hazardous effect on the environment as a whole. Heck.... wildlife in the areas around Chernobyl are doing quite well thanks to the complete lack of human activity in the area.

    Instead of encouraging us to all drive electric cars, the enviromentalists should have been promoting hybrids as a reasonably practical segue into developing electric cars. Now that hybrids have been proven to be practical and effective, companies are turning their attention to plug-in hybrids and true EVs.

    Instead of demanding full and widespread adoption of wind and solar power, they should have been encouraging experiments with small-scale wind and solar farms, as well as more R&D into those two technologies. Small wind farms have slowly proven to be practical and economical in certain areas, and if NanoSolar can keep true to their word on production costs, we should be seeing solar panels being printed onto every exterior surface imaginable over the next few years.

    The thing is....you can't force a revolution. GreenPeace need to learn that they might actually have a chance of achieving their goals by lightly prodding industry and consumers in the right direction.

    Instead of proclaiming "GAMES, NINTENDO EVIL," perhaps they could instead publish a headline such as "Greenpeace study finds that Nintendo could drastically cut landfill waste by using biodegradable hemp-based plastics for just $0.02USD per unit"

    Perhaps that's a bit of a mouthful, but it's a lot more likely to provoke a response from the public: "Hey, why don't they do that? Sounds awfully selfish of them not to," and a resoponse from the company: "Hey, why don't we do this? It'll help us improve our image, and won't cost much"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by digitrev (989335)
      Ahh, but you're forgetting the reason they don't take your wonderful suggestions and actually manage to be relevant: idealism. They'd rather stay true to their wonderful ideals, try and force everyone to radically change the way things work, than to make practical suggestions, work on changing society bit by bit instead of gigabyte by gigabyte. But to slow down makes people believe they're too mainstream, which is heinous in their idealistic eyes. Oh well, better luck next time.
  • Not a bad point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sherriw (794536) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:33AM (#23476342)
    There are a lot of comments complaining about Greenpeace in general, or making jokes... but they have a good point. Electronics are manufactured from way too many toxic and impossible or difficult to recycle products. Consumers aren't aware enough about the need to recycle electronics, or even where to bring them.

    Too often they end up somewhere like this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography [nationalgeographic.com]

    Which is just sad.
    • Re:Not a bad point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Russ Nelson (33911) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:56AM (#23476744) Homepage

      Consumers aren't aware enough about the need to recycle electronics,
      What need? Why shouldn't we landfill electronics? Modern sanitary landfills are quite safe, especially compared to the old "dumps".

      You say it's sad that third-world people can make money recycling first-world electronics, but you should consider that they're choosing to do this OVER THEIR OTHER CHOICES. If you don't want them to pick the choice you don't like, then give them better choices. Don't try to take away the one thing out of all their choices that they DID choose.
  • ED (Score:3, Funny)

    by chill (34294) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:49AM (#23476584) Journal
    Components of the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation3 also contained high levels of phthalates, one of which - DEHP - is known to interfere with sexual development in mammals: including humans and, especially, males.

    Hmmm...that explains the plethora of Viagra spam to geeks. The more you game, the harder it is to satisfy a woman thus the less chance of actually keeping a girlfriend. Not having a girlfriend and not getting any directly contributes to gaming more. A vicious circle!
  • by Tastycat (1003898) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @11:51AM (#23476644)
    None of the major environmental activist groups are 'fun enough', says gaming console manufacturers in a report released today. Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo Director of Technology, said: "We were shocked with Greenpeace; it was our biggest surprise." The group is described by the companies as the least 'fun' green firm.

    Additionally, when asked for comment on the above story Miyamoto replied, "Yes, and?"
  • by Quattro Vezina (714892) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @12:26PM (#23477372) Journal
    Even the founder of Greenpeace has disowned them, because they go way too far.

    They're a bunch of nutjobs, and only one step away from terrorists.
  • by RocketScientist (15198) * on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @02:27PM (#23479696)
    It should just be "Greenpeace Complains".

    "Greenpeace complains video consoles aren't green enough"

    "Greenpeace complains apple isn't green enough"

    "Greenpeace complains that some people smell bad"

    "Greenpeace complains that when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie that's amore"

    Srsly. Quit complaining. Start fixing.

    "OH manufacturer X doesn't have a recycling program WAH WAH WAH!"

    How about...starting one? Or at least designing one? You're not leading, you're not following, so just get out of the way already.

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin

Working...